Social media guidelines in your job search and workplace

Pin It

social media agreementLast week I was in a café when I overheard a conversation next to me. At a nearby table, a supervisor from a child care agency was interviewing a young job seeker. The interviewer asked the young college student a series of questions about her experience, education goals and schedule. From what I gathered, she had already gone through a phone interview and this was the first in-person meeting between the two women.

The interviewer then handed the applicant a stack of papers and explained, “These are forms we require for new employees. That way, if you get the job, you can start immediately and we don’t have to waste time going through all of this later.”

She explained that one page was about references. Another was about experience. Then she got to the last page.

“We need you to sign this. You just promise not to write our name on Facebook or Twitter or anything like that.”

That statement caught me off guard. Perhaps it shouldn’t have, but I regularly write and read about social media in the workplace because of my job and I’ve never heard about this happening during an interview. I wanted to find out more about the agency’s policy, but I didn’t want to interrupt the interview. So I left wondering a few things:

  • Is that kind of agreement a standard practice in businesses today?
  • Is that agreement legally binding?
  • Does the agreement prohibit any mention of the company or only mentions that are disparaging or divulge confidential information?
  • What about professionals who use social media sites as their online résumé and portfolio? Do they have to leave that experience off of their online work history?

So I decided to ask around.

One job seeker, Bob Johnson from New York City, says he hasn’t yet encountered any of these nondisclosure agreements in his hunt. He, like many job seekers, wonders whether or not such an agreement is an infringement on freedom of speech.

Erin T. Welsh, an associate with the law firm Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, explains why some companies are persnickety about their employees and social media.

“According to newly revised [Federal Trade Commission] guidelines which took effect Dec. 1, 2009, employers may face liability for comments posted by employees on blogs or social networking websites,” Welsh explains. “If an employee comments about his or her employer’s products or services on such social networking websites and the employment relationship is not disclosed, potential liability may exist for the employer under the FTC guidelines — even if the comments were not sponsored or authorized by the employer.”

For this reason, Welsh explains, explicit guidelines about social media practices benefit employers. Clear guidelines can prevent negative attention from a wayward comment that calls into question the company’s ethics.

Joy Butler is an attorney and author of “The Cyber Citizen’s Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Internet Law for Your Professional Online Presence.” She has seen social media policies and agreements become commonplace in workplaces.

“A social media policy cannot prevent employees from exercising the right to talk about improving work conditions or organizing a union as such restrictions would violate federal laws,” Butler says.

In her experience, these policies typically address the following issues:

  • The employee’s postings must not disclose any of the employer’s confidential or proprietary information.
  • If the employee comments on an aspect of the employer’s business in which the employee has responsibility, the employee must identify himself as an employee of the company and make it clear that he is speaking on behalf of himself and not the company.
  • If the employee identifies himself as an employee of the company, refers to the company’s work or provides a link to the company, the employee must include a disclaimer such as the following: “The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of [XYZ Co.].”
  • The employee must not include the employer’s logos or trademarks in the employees’ Internet postings.

Amid this head scratching, Becky Blanton, a professional ghostwriter, points out that nondisclosure agreements are common in many industries — especially hers. They’re also obstacles for her to overcome when piecing together her portfolio.

“When your [job depends] on showcasing work — like a brochure or website — and the owner insists that you not use it in your portfolio, you’re often faced with having to show some less impressive or distinctive work simply because it’s all you can show,” Blanton says. “I’ve worked with Hollywood celebrities and two or three people within the gravitational pull of the Oprah-sphere that would have been nice pieces in a portfolio. But the NDA prohibits naming names or using the final product in any public way, so I can’t use those examples.”

Would you willingly sign one of these agreements? Would an NDA stop you from using your social media profiles to find jobs and present your portfolio? Let us know in the comments section below.

  1. I don’t think that it would make any sense to write about your present employer in a negative way on the net. It is easy to search for information about the people that you work with that you wouldn’t want to jeopardize your career.

  2. Pingback: Nuances Of Seo Copywriting | Daily SEO Blog

  3. No employer can accept that employees are posting confidential or other critical inside information about the company and it is a reality that during the past years more and more employees lost their jobs exactly due to this reason.

  4. Your blog is draconian nightmare. Let’s just kill each and everyone of our own independant or creative thoughts and become slave to the corporate white man. Kudos to you, you have arrived.

    • Some facts to consider:

      My employer has staffed a department of “investigators” who exist to search the internet and social networking sites for any mention of their name or client’s names and/or any mention of any conversations that they feel “might” be them and/or other employees (primarily supervisors and management).

      I was recently required to complete an online training session concerning company policy related to social networking. Did this take place at work? No….it was sent to my home e-mail address and I was required to complete it at home with no pay. I am an hourly worker; not management; not supervisory. I was not briefed about this requirement before hand, nor was I notified of the coming communication. It arrived in my e-mail unnannounced in any way by the company. I was given a “test” to determine my understanding of the material and I am certain this information is now part of my permanent employee record. Oddly, I was not asked to sign any disclosure statement nor was I asked to sign any other document waiving particular rights in regard to internet communications outside of the workplace.

      I am now completely paranoid as to using my own name on the internet because I have been advised that this “investigation” department is searching out employee names to find anything they may post to the internet.

      I understand concern regarding using a company name and posting confidential and damaging information on the web; but actually searching for any and everything someone has posted? Actually holding employees accountable for statements not associated to a company but those that “might” be or “seem” to be about a company co-worker?

      In my view, that is extremely paranoid and could be connected to harassment if an employee is disciplined or counseled in the workplace regarding such unidentifiable remarks. In fact, what would prevent a co-worker, whether management or supervisor, from claiming a statement made on the internet by another worker was about him/her? I could pull comments off the internet and speculate it was about me; of course, I’m not a paranoid schizophrenic.

      I think this corporate Naziism is going too far.

      I am presently researching the pretense of sending a mandatory or even a non-mandatory training e-mail to my home, like the one I received, as being harassment and intimidation.

      I believe the at home training requirement while not being paid is a violation of State labor laws as well.

      My position at the company has no availability to any company e-mail, and I am expressly prohibited from using the internet outside of a required website maintained by the company. I do not carry a computer device to my work, other then a cell phone, that I am restricted from using except at breaks and lunch. I have never mentioned the company I work for by name, nor have I mentioned any confidential information; in fact, the information concerning my company is widely publicized and certainly not cloaked in secrecy. Any person is able to research the web and obtain more information regarding the company that the company would most likely prefer was not available; but they have not pursued having it removed from news sources, government sources, or from independent sources.

      My employer, by way of the department manager, informed us that we can no longer list the name of the company as being our employer on anything appearing on the internet. I would think that would include resume posting sites.

      I don’t believe they can require this legally and I am checking out the “threat” aspect of that announcement.

      It seems that some corporations believe they are beyond the law regarding these issues. I have just been informed that my employer may have plased a “Flash” tracking cookie on my system when I went to the website link for the training. I was advised to use a software to identify this cookie and, sure enough, it was there. Not only was it able to track my web visits, but also my personal information.

      I am turning this record over to a law firm that is working on a lawsuit concerning this kind of thing and privacy.

      Who knows how many corporations are doing this to their employees?

  5. Pingback: Social media guidelines in your job search and workplace : The Work Buzz « Michelin Career Center's Blog

  6. Pingback: Social media guidelines in your job search and workplace | Cmattix's Blog

  7. Pingback: Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again : The Work Buzz

  8. Pingback: Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again « Sales and Marketing Jobs

  9. Pingback: Freshers Yaar! » Blog Archive » Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again

  10. Pingback: Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again « Canadian Engineering Jobs

  11. Pingback: Only Bangalore Jobs » Blog Archive » Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again

  12. Pingback: Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again » Techie Masala

  13. Pingback: Fired for a Facebok Joke … Again | Only Delhi Jobs - Delhi's Job Search HQ | Delhi Jobs

  14. I was actually put on a final written warning (albiet the facility skipped the written warning & counseling part..) because I wrote: “Saving the world one pudding snack at a time.”…”Back to the salt mines.”…And “How come those who micromanage never seem to want to do any of the work.” I was told that “someone”, they (Head of HR, direct supervisor, and clinical leader. Who hence forth shall be known as “they”)wouldn’t tell me who was offended and “they” had to follow up. I was told it was a small town and that everyone would know it was their facility. Everyone? Be real. Then when “they” couldn’t get me on that, “they” pulled the use of Facebook on company time. When I noted that it was done on my time on my own computer and FB, Farmville, and internet games were played in all other departments, I was told that I was supervising and that I had a masters degree and needed to set an example. When it was pointed out that the M.D.s were using it, HR pulled out 2 stacks of paper saying it was my internet usage on two randomly picked days. For all I know it could’ve been a stack of quarterly reports. I told them that I couldn’t defend myself on that and “they” could not explain to me what the two stacks of paper were, you realize “they” have it out for you and you’re not getting out of this one. I hate to say it, but when you have 3 against one, & you know you’re not gonna win, I did the only thing I could think of…I hate to admit it, I started crying.

  15. Pingback: Freshers Yaar! » Blog Archive » Faux-Pas Firings: The Saga Continues

  16. This is the future we are in. Not the past, when common sense used to be enough to keep you from publically bashing your employer. People think that the web gives then some kind of privacy shield. Nothing is farther from the truth. Where I used to work I was forced to fire soneone ( their fault but still extreme ) for sending a private e-mail on a company computer. People you have to remember you are at your job to do your job, not social networking. I have the samw problem with cell phones. I do not permit private calls while they are on the job. I actually had one employee threaten me because I forced him to hang up his cell ( he was tying up loose ends while trying to purchase car ) during a company meeting!.. I permitted such calls on an ER by ER basis of course. But people have got to start using their heads when in comes to the way they use their cells and company computers, The computers are there for the use of compnay business, and company business only. You are not being paid to take care of your own business while at work, you are getting paid to take care of mine! How would you like to be docked your pay everytime you put your needs ahead of your employer?
    I’m just sayin’

  17. Something is really wrong here! Why is it that they can do a background check and a credit check before they can hire you and now they are dictating what we can and can not say on the net.

  18. some employeres are not being responsible.When a person has seen hiring that is illegal and the courts will do nothing about it why not post there name on the web. look at the way teck hires there people,canadas taking americans jobs. native peoples hired for there race rather than there experince.

  19. Actually,I’m not very clear about what you say.Yes,that’s because I’m not a man who use English as his first language.But from what you say,I got that,people are not permitted to say on the net because of his employer.What I think is that it’s wrong.It’s our freedom,citizen’s freedom.

  20. In one way I understand. Companies, no matter how bad, do not want to be bashed because it might be possible that they will never hire a decent person again. But people have the freedom of speech. Those who felt slighted at work or even were ACTUALLY wronged have gossiped and/or complained for years. Socia medias are just a “new” form of it so its more wide-spread and anyone can now read it. I have watched enough SciFi shows/movies to see that we are moving in the direction of many of the things in those forms of entertainment that people fight against the “bad” governement/robots/ruler/etc. and we abhor when we watch them. Letting someone dictact what you can and can’t do on your own time is wrong and if we let them get away with it, soon enough someone will pick our lives for us. So I say its wrong.

  21. The first thing is why does a supposedly good, law abiding company that doesn’t do wrong want its workers to sign something like this? If you don’t sign it you don’t get the job. I would have to think twice before i took a job at a company like that. If they were on the up and up that would not be needed. I would probably pass on the job.

  22. i guess we can refer to the old rule of good manners- if you dont have anything nice to facebook then dont facebook at all. we have lost our manners and use the internet to justify saying whatever we want. i am all for freedom of speech but at what cost to the level of our decency? as a teacher i laugh reading this having heard the complaints from parents whose kids get cyberbullied then i go on facebook and there the parents are cyberbashing other adults, companies, politicians.i think if you have an issue with a person, an employer, a company you should handle it with class.

  23. I don’t mind signing such agreement as long as the job requires it. Obviously social network is the place where we love to share our personal and professional experiences but as long as there’s a privacy matter, why should we?

  24. David, while I agree that it doesn’t make sense to write negatively about your employer online, I personally see it happening all of the time. Just the other day I was reading my Facebook page and saw a friend’s friend complaining wildly about her job at a bank — and she named her bank! Furthermore, as a bank teller, she was describing the “annoying stuff that customers want me to do for them.”

    If I were a business owner and not just a lowly Enterprise 2.0 consultant :-) I would probably find some value in the inclusion of social media restrictions in the NDA. In my opinon, though, it shouldn’t be any different than the channels that are already established in many NDAs. In other words, what companies ask their employees to refrain from sharing in public, on broadcasts, in print, on their blogs, and in email and other channels should simply extend to the social networks.


  25. This is just another example of the modern corporation’s increasingly large role in dictating our legal rights and controlling our once private lives. It is a clear violation of our freedom of speech, yet somehow under the pretense that one can give up their rights if they choose to do so, it has being taken away. Do not be fooled, this is an agressive act against the labor class and is so much more than just an employee’s decision. (I know the counter argument that, well they don’t have to sign it if they don’t want to, and I will get to this and the fallacy of that argument later on).This is very similar to how courts no longer work to protect contracts between employees and employers. That is they no longer work to protect the empoyee from a violation of the contract by the employer. How did that come to be so? Well, the modern corporation discovered that it can never lose if it never has to fight, and so it devised the Arbitration Agreement, in which an employee must agree to take all contests and complaints before an Arbitrator (picked and paid for by the Employer) who will decide the legitimacy of the Employee’s claim. What is worse is that the Employer chooses what powers the Arbitrator has and what remedies it is authorized to reward. Therefore it is very easy for the employer to create a system in which the employee has no real avenue of redress. These so called agreements are a farce. Since every corporation participates in this scheme by requiring all employees to sign such agreements, there are essentialy no jobs availalbe that do not require us to forfeit our rights. One of our last and most sacred resorts is out right and ability to air our greiviances publicly. To shine the light on wrongful and discrimatory practices of the corporation and let the public see just what that company is actually about. This keeps companies in check for they would avoid such practices if it would hurt their image. But now that employees and former employees no longer have the right to free speech they do not have to worry about such dirty laundry being aired. And what are the courts and legislators sworn to uphold the constitution and protect the people doing about this scheme to deprive the people of justice? Well two things essentially, buying in and looking the other way. Take this excerpt from the Senate Floor discussing two examples how the supreme court has turned its back on the American People.

    Jamie Leigh Jones. As a 20-year-old, she went to Iraq as a contractor for KBR, then a Halliburton subsidy. She complained about sexual harassment almost immediately. She was put in a barracks with 400 men and a handful of women. When she complained to KBR, they not only ignored her, they mocked her. They told her, Oh, go spend the day in the spa. Four days later, she was drugged and brutally gang raped by her coworkers and then locked in a shipping container with no contact with the outside world.

    What happened to Jamie Leigh in Iraq was bad enough, but because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Circuit City Stores v. Adams, KBR had been able to force Jamie to sign an employment contract that required her to arbitrate all job disputes rather than bringing them to a court of law. So Jamie, now a teacher in a Christian school in Texas, was forced to spend the next 4 years fighting to get her day in court after being gang raped on the job. She has had two reconstructive surgeries since this happened. Let me say this again. She was brutally gang raped on the job and still had to fight to get her day in court.

    I am proud the Senate passed my amendment to give victims such as Jamie Leigh Jones a chance for justice and I was proud to see it signed into law. But, sadly, we are about to see a lot more Jamie Leighs denied their day in court. Just yesterday, as Senator Whitehouse noted, the Court erected yet another hurdle for people seeking justice in another 5-4 decision, this one called Rent-A-Center v. Jackson.

    On one side of the courtroom in this case was Rent-A-Center, a corporation that runs over 3,000 furniture and electronics rent-to-own stores across North America, with 21,000 employees and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual profits. On the other side stood Antonio Jackson, an African-American account manager in Nevada who sought to bring a civil rights claim against his employer. Jackson claims that Rent-A-Center repeatedly passed him over for promotions and promoted non-African-American employees with less experience.

    Although Jackson signed an employment contract agreeing to arbitrate all employment claims, he also knew the contract was unfair, so he challenged it in court. But yesterday the Supreme Court sided with Rent-A-Center, ruling that an arbitrator, not a court, should decide whether an arbitration clause is valid. Let me say that again. The arbitrator gets to decide whether an arbitration clause is valid. Let me repeat that. The arbitrator gets to decide whether the arbitration clause is valid. That is just one step away from letting the corporation itself decide whether a contract is fair.

  26. @1frances1 First off your comment is completely unrelated to the issue at hand, and since you either lack the powers of logic to deduce what those issues are or are just too busy juggling you workplace responsibilities to take the time to read the article you spent 15 minutes (of company time I presume) to comment on, let me explain what those issues are. The issue is not wether it is okay to use company time to do your own social networking, which you so adamently oppose, but whether in your off-time on your own computer should it be okay for a company to dictate what you are and are not allowed to say about them on social media sites. Oh and your wrong about the company time thing as well, and it would probably be a good idea to have a colonoscopy to examine just what has gotten shoved so far up your large intestine that it has turned you into a walking small intestine. The thing is with these jobs in offices is that they all basically keep the same hours. And most employees work all of those hours. Which means that if I have to take care of some personal business with another company, I have to do it while they are open, which is the same time my company is open, which is the same time I am at work. I agree that a company should maintain a professional atmosphere and employees shouldn’t be playing or slacking of on the job, but handeling personal business is another matter. You should be more concerned with the results of your employee’s labor instead of with the time laboring. Such backward intrest is guaranteed to produce inefficiency.

  27. Companies have all the power and resources to mess up with your life if they so wish.

    I worked for a company back in IA, where we were entitled to have a college/master course paid IF we were doing well in the one o one interview _ a way that companies found to see how you are doing. Well, over the months, during my one to one, I was constantly asking my then supervisor how I was doing, so that I could prepare myself to improve and consequently get the chance to have this company paying for my further studies. She was consistely telling me that I was doing ‘FINE’ which I believe that it means that all is FINE and that there is nothing that needs to be improved drastically.

    I even explained, in writing, ‘let me know’ how I can improve. Surprisingly, when the final professional weight came, I was told that my job was ‘unacceptable’. Now, I ask your help, how can somebody coach you every single month and then tell you that your job is unacceptable if you were not told so???

    The other supervisor, R. Killburg, stalked me in a mall. Because I am a foreginer, a ‘bloody foreigner’, I know the answer from health care professionals about it: ” forget it, don’t worry and so on”… If I were American (a.k.a, deserve to be respected) , the incident would be an issue) and my emotional distress would be worth to be looked into. But we, immigrants, are supposed to excel ‘no matter what’. And please, don’t tell me that your parents were immigrant and this is not true. I will tell you, your parents past experience don’t really reflect in your own if you were in this country at an early age.

    I tried hard to know why she was doing so, got back to the Cedar Rapids Mall and asked many times at the Administration if they had a camera, always got the negativa answer, despite the fact that I called, not from my phone, and had the positive answer with an extra evidence, that they keep the surveillance for 6 months. Surprise, when I retured to the Mall, they asked which company I work for,,, after saying the name AEG@!, they told me that there was no camera!!! Yes, keep the employer name safe, hidden,,, let them do whatever they want.

    The next business day when I retured to work, the stalker was in an unusual area, at an entrace spot, arms at the wall, laughing at me. Later, I passed by the manager’s desk, and she/stalker was talking to Pat K about Mall and what she had done, the manager then told her ‘What about the HIPPA law’.. just a coincidence,, but while the stalker was hiding behind a wall waiting for me to pass by, MY previous healthcare professional was passing in front of me with her husband and kid/s. COINCIDENCES !!! COINCIDENCES !!!! I believe I got so frustrated for not being able to clarify, to get the root of this game that this messed up with my life… I WISH I DIDN’T HAVE HATE FOR WHAT SHE DID, BUT I DO !!! Then, the games started,, somebody calls (all coincidence..) and then you are invited by your surpervise every 2 days to go for a meeting because y answered something wrong… something that had answered the same way before for years and years… ‘oh! y should have told her about this other form’.. but she was asking me about the medical form,, oh! but in this case you should have… excuses, excuses, games !!!

    One day I woke up in my temporary flat and on the other side of the apartment, there was a video camera from a flat right to my window… ???? I can be wrong, but something was weird ??? I feel that I was trapped !!! By what I hear and saw, I know it is ‘who the supervisor like… i.e: I never used the internet, but saw my co worker, right BESIDE me, using it many times during work time.. I BET you, that if it were me,, then that would be a poblem,, oh, yes !!! During lunch time, before calling my family abroad. I get up from my cube and ask the supervisor: “I am going to call abroad, with my 1-800 free number,, o.Kay”?… Look at the answer,, O.Kay, as long as you don’t charge the company.. HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO???? Is this a collective unsconsciouness that make her reply so….?? If I, IF I, IF I am the one getting up from my chair, going to tell her that I am going to call with an 800 free phone card,,, why such a reply?

    Many, many more problems,,, After working for eleven months, I was not entitled to the company’s bonus, because I was (indirectly) invited to leave, of course, after all, who can hold being called out every 2 days for a groundless explanation… so much, so much more issues… then you ask me,, did you contact the HR?? I was there,,, help line,,,? What for.. it WAS ALL A COINCIDENCE…
    ENRON problems were also a coincidence,, until somebody could prove it !!! Doctors say that I have something similar to PTSD.. I deny it,,, maybe I don’t accept the fact that all my graps, zeal to work is done! They can do whatever they want to !!!
    R. Kilburg changed department and so did Pat K… the traces continue on me,,, R.K only did what the higher peers probably asked her too!!! I hate myself for not leaving before,,, I thought I was too strong and that I could prove that she was stalking me, but after going to lawyers office and never being able to get to the root of the problem, I ‘kind of’ gave up to the outside world.

    Everytime I have to travel, I take medicines because the police approach at the mall made me somehow uncomfortable. I did go to a psychoterapist _ his office was almost in front of the mall_ and he told me ‘You could have gone to jail’_ then I told him,, “I would if I were a drug dealer, a thief’,, so he replied,, Are y saying that I am underestimating your problem”.. ‘Thank y, I replied’! ever got back to him, because as you know.. that was not a subliminar threat to me,,, it was Just A Coincidence… my head hurts, I have to stop now !!!

    Not sure if this will be published. I have a feeling she is still stalking me, has access to my internet !!!
    ‘Life (?)’ goes one…

  28. Thank you Landon and durian. It’s slightly comforting to know I’m not alone. Were incredibly outnumbered though, good luck.

  29. I’ve been in sales and marketing for thirty years. For the past seven years I’ve been a consultant. In all of these, non-disclosure agreements are a fact of life. So in answer to your question, would I sign a NDA for a job? Yes. I do it all the time. So do any professionals, though in some cases they’re not signing a NDA, their professional ethics and licensing require non-disclosure.

    I like the one approach, though, that allows employees to comment on their company’s products if they reveal that they are employees and it’s their opinion. In a society where people think that a good lawsuit is like hitting the lottery, companies must be clear and ensure that an endoresement doesn’t look like an unbiased customer.

    The U.S. government now requires us as Internet marketers to reveal if we are getting affiliate commissions for the same issue of bias.

    As a consumer, I would think you too would want to know if this is a satisfied customer or a satisfied customer who has a vested interest in the product doing well.

  30. Pingback: Employers Embrace Web 2.0 « Job Search Engineering

  31. I don’t understand whats wrong with people who feel its ok to bad mouth your company on a public forum like facebook. Are you idiots.
    No company wants their business on line to the world. And some people only see their side of issues and nothing else, not necessarily fair. In the old days, before computers, if you had an opinion you discussed it with friends and co workers but did not put it on the front page of the local paper. Thats really what your doing when you badmouth your company on facebook.. They pay you. Your salary is how you live. You, of course, are entitled to hate your job, you boss, your company, but if you get fired for telling the world your company sucks and your boss is an asshole on a forum like facebook, you deserve it

  32. Pingback: Freshers Yaar! » Blog Archive » Women more cautious about social media and the workplace

  33. plz send me details how can i work online through facebook’s social media guidelines.

    thanks & regards
    Avdhesh Kumar

  34. OKAY… Soo we ALL pretty much agree…We all have finally noticed that the insidious rape of our personal privacy freedom of speach and even thought are being made not only a matter of public record but they are insisting on it.
    to protest is to be challenged with”WELL? what ARE you hiding?! (though often couched in more pleasant and bland verbage)
    Problem here is y’all that we looked up from our facebook/myspace/buy it on the internet 24/7 lives a bit late in the game. Call me a freak, a need to break the pill in half, get help , paranoid, Anarchist or what ever floats your not so private boat, BUT the “BORG” has been quietly settling in for many many years,and I would love to see us unite no matter what country , race or sex we are and take that power back, but I have tried numerous timesto no avail. I have not the money nor community standing to catch anything more than the gag they provided at my expense. Push too hard and you might find yourself places and situations you thought only existed in disturbing movies. I will follow and support any person or group who can provide me with a concrete plan of action…..of course anyone volunteering just that could be a propoganda plant purposely put in place to spread”mis-information” don’t get that look if you think this is all the rant of a loonatic wait a lil longer. These days I just shake my head try to keep it above water and THANK GOD or whoever that i am 50 and won’t be here too terrible much longer. The rabbit hole is VERY VERY deep, but I will shovel me how to defeat the borg?I am all in.

  35. oh, de castro…
    The real issue isn’t amoron who thinks that firing up his company , boss etc is different on facebook than in person… which will get you fired. I can prove it, I kept getting pushed and pushed and lied too and got so naseated with all that smile in your face manipulate the supervisor into getting your head on he block with lies or money or sex, who cares that I tld them ALL what I thought they really were
    the issue is the fact that companies and individuals are using the need to retain some decorum or the corporate nature, on the web to invade people on much more personal level and silently hold it against them then find a legal viable excuse to flush them for. we are al trying to figure out where and how to draw the line and who is giong to monitor those who monitor everyone else to keep them from abusing this information.
    SIGH, your government owns and uses satellite imaging to look at the book, letter newspaper you are reading over your shoulder while your on the park bench, (if they so choose) CONTROL THAT>

  36. Pingback: Social media guidelines in your job search and workplace : The … | Job Offers

  37. Pingback: Employers Embrace Web 2.0 : The Work Buzz

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>